Absolute beginner - request for advice on getting started

Hi All,

I've just come across this ng. Cool!. I have always been fascinated by
the heavens, even as a child. My childhood dream was to be an
astronaut!. Anyway, I've monitored this group for a few weeks and so far
you all seem to be quite decent folk ;-). I mean I haven't seen any way
OTT OT postings (yet), and you all seem quite passionate about what
you're talking about.

Ok, enough of the chit chat. Now that I have a little more resources, I
want to spend some time doing the ff:

1). Looking into deep space (taking photographs) and discovering new
stars and galaxies
2). Discovering new planetary systems (possibly, with the ability to
"probe" them for signs of gases which might indicate life)

Number 2 is really my primary (short term to intermediate) goal. The
problem is that I have *absolutely* no idea as to where to begin. I am
thinking of building an observatory (I already have the plans drawn up).
However, I don't know that much about telescopes. I know that to do (1)
probably requires an optical telescope, whilst to do (2) would probably
require a radio telescope. I am even open to ideas of new telescopes
that people may have (I mean c'mon the optical telescope has not changed
much in principle since Newtonian times - what's going on?).

Anyway, I really want to look for planetary systems but I would also
like to take "nice" coloured pictures of the stars/planets/galaxies I
find. Does anybody knows what kind of equipment I need ?


PS: I also happen to live in a city (though I have a "reasonable"
amount of private land around my house). I am wondering if lights from
streetlamps etc may be a problem, and if that is the case, if I can get
around that problem by using a radio telescope instead. If anyone has an
idea for a new telescope though, I will be very interested in hearing
about it. I am not interested in what is *practical* at the moment, I
merely want to hear from people who can think "outside the box".

Look forward to hearing from you

Regards,


Takeshi

Takeshi wrote:

at the moment, I
merely want to hear from people who can think "outside the box".

Takeshi

You've come to the right place - nearly all the contributors to this
ng are way outside their boxes.

-----------------------------
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 01 52.2 E 0 47 21.1
-----------------------------

"Takeshi" wrote in message
...
2). Discovering new planetary systems (possibly, with the ability to
"probe" them for signs of gases which might indicate life)

Number 2 is really my primary (short term to intermediate) goal. The
problem is that I have *absolutely* no idea as to where to begin.

Hi Takeshi,

Perhaps you need to re-estimate your goals. Discovering planetary systems is
a lifetimes work in itself (not just a 'short term goal') - Probing
planetary systems for life?, If you are talking about probing solar system
planets for signs of life, then you need to graduate with a degree in
Astrophysics and join a research program such as the Beagle 2 Mars lander
program (I'm sure there will be plenty of other such postgraduate research
programs available once you have finished your degree)

Here's a link to give you an idea of what is involved in detecting
extrasolar planets: http://www.spectrashift.com/

If you are talking about probing extra-solar planetary systems for life,
then this is hardly what I'd describe as a 'short to intermediate' goal. To
achieve number 2 you should be prepared to spend 30-40 years establishing
yourself as a respected astrophysicist who has been involved in solar system
probe missions or design of new rocket propulsion systems (for example).

You need to get to the same level of understanding as the likes of Prof.
Stephen Hawking, with an in-depth knowledge of the nature of the Universe.
This is necessary as you will need to develop some method to send a probe
across hundreds of light years in a short space of time. And there is no
guarantee that you will achieve this, even if you do spend the next 30-40
years working towards this intermediate goal.

So, where to begin? - Well, have you learnt the constellations yet? - Do you
know where the Messier objects are located in the sky? - Have you used
either binoculars or a telescope to at least locate possible extrasolar
planetary systems such as Tau Boo?

There's no point spending 40 years developing warp drive if you don't know
which direction to point it.

:-)

John.

Ok I get your point John ;-)

Actually, I wasn't actually thinking of sending a probe "out there".
Even I have to accept that that is not realistic (for now ;-)). I was
talking about a kind of "remote viewing" using a spectroscope to analyse
the gases of any exixting atmosphere of the planet for basic "life"
compound gases like methane etc....

Regarding the point of establishing myself as an astrophysist (of the
calibre of Hawking etc..). Well I disagree with you. As Einstein himself
once said, "we cannot solve our existing problems with the same
mindset/frae of mind we were in when we created those problems (or words
to that effect). Without getting too philosophical (and possibly
sounding "pollyanaish"). I'll pose the ff question:

q). Why does a bumble bee fly when it has been proven (aerodynamically)
that its wings cannot create enough lift for its body mass?
a). Because no one has bothered to explain this to the bumble bee - it
just does it's "thang" ;-)

Do you know that physiscist have actually proven that ice cream cannot
exist?. (Something about the structure of the ice and fat molecules..).
Incidentally, I'm not having a go at physicist (being a mathematician,
I'm inclined to though ;-)). No seriously, I am empiricalist or
experimental physisict not by training but by following my passion
(ofcourse, a maths postgrad degree always comes in handy ;-)). Anyway
look, I'm going OT now.

The main point I wanted to make about your assertion of being formally
trained in this field as a necessary and sufficient requirement is not
based on facts. History has shown repeatedly that all great inventions
were made by people who were from other fields. The "experts" were too
busy disproving each others theory and afraid of going out on a limb.
Edwin Hubble I believe studied Law (Ok he had a maths and astonomy
background), Einstein himself essentially, was a mathematician (not a
physicist) and so on and so on..

This is really why I am challenging people to think outside the box
regarding telescopes. Why are we still using Newtonian telescopes (or
variants of it). Have we not had a new idea in all this time?...

Anyway, to more *practical* (I hate that word - it's soooo limiting)
things. I still have the challenge of finding out which existing
telescope will be powerful enough - mounted in my observatory, to help
me detect other planetary systems and be able to perfom a chemical
analysis (using spectroscopy) of any atmosphere surrounding the
planet(s). Sure, it's a tall order but whats the point of living if
there is nothing to aspire to?. I do this not for fame and glory, but to
satisfy my own curiosity. I could not care less if some academics do not
approve of my methodologies, views or ideas . So there ;-) !

Any ideas for outrageously new innovative telescopes ? Do I hear any
suggestions ....?

Look forward to your feedback :-)

Regards,

Takeshi






John Honan wrote:

"Takeshi" wrote in message
...

2). Discovering new planetary systems (possibly, with the ability to
"probe" them for signs of gases which might indicate life)

Number 2 is really my primary (short term to intermediate) goal. The
problem is that I have *absolutely* no idea as to where to begin.


Hi Takeshi,

Perhaps you need to re-estimate your goals. Discovering planetary systems is
a lifetimes work in itself (not just a 'short term goal') - Probing
planetary systems for life?, If you are talking about probing solar system
planets for signs of life, then you need to graduate with a degree in
Astrophysics and join a research program such as the Beagle 2 Mars lander
program (I'm sure there will be plenty of other such postgraduate research
programs available once you have finished your degree)

Here's a link to give you an idea of what is involved in detecting
extrasolar planets: http://www.spectrashift.com/

If you are talking about probing extra-solar planetary systems for life,
then this is hardly what I'd describe as a 'short to intermediate' goal. To
achieve number 2 you should be prepared to spend 30-40 years establishing
yourself as a respected astrophysicist who has been involved in solar system
probe missions or design of new rocket propulsion systems (for example).

You need to get to the same level of understanding as the likes of Prof.
Stephen Hawking, with an in-depth knowledge of the nature of the Universe.
This is necessary as you will need to develop some method to send a probe
across hundreds of light years in a short space of time. And there is no
guarantee that you will achieve this, even if you do spend the next 30-40
years working towards this intermediate goal.

So, where to begin? - Well, have you learnt the constellations yet? - Do you
know where the Messier objects are located in the sky? - Have you used
either binoculars or a telescope to at least locate possible extrasolar
planetary systems such as Tau Boo?

There's no point spending 40 years developing warp drive if you don't know
which direction to point it.

:-)

John.

I still have the challenge of finding out which existing
telescope will be powerful enough - mounted in my observatory, to help
me detect other planetary systems

There is no telescope in existence capable of resolving an extra-solar
planet. The best we can manage at the moment is milli arcsec
resolution. You'd need micro arc sec resolution at least to get the
results you need. You can't do it from within our atmosphere and if
you could you'd need a 100 metre diameter mirror.
Good luck,
jc


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 27/11/2003

In message , Takeshi
writes
Ok I get your point John ;-)

Actually, I wasn't actually thinking of sending a probe "out there".
Even I have to accept that that is not realistic (for now ;-)). I was
talking about a kind of "remote viewing" using a spectroscope to
analyse the gases of any exixting atmosphere of the planet for basic
"life" compound gases like methane etc....

You can certainly buy amateur gear off the shelf good enough to show
absorption lines in bright stars and solar system planets/moons with
atmospheres. Perhaps good enough to analyse minor planets.

But it is asking a bit much to see planets round other stars. The light
grasp and resolution needed requires telescopes with at least a couple
of metres aperture. And even then it isn't easily done.

Incidentally methane is far too common to take as signs of life.

sounding "pollyanaish"). I'll pose the ff question:

q). Why does a bumble bee fly when it has been proven (aerodynamically)
that its wings cannot create enough lift for its body mass?

As a fixed wing aircraft. This old chestnut has been misquoted far too
often. It may have escaped your notice but a bee is not a fixed wing
design. The original application of that formula to a bee was done in
jest.

Much like the "stress analysis of strapless evening gowns" or still more
famously "on the imperturbability of elevator operators".

a). Because no one has bothered to explain this to the bumble bee - it
just does it's "thang" ;-)

It still obeys the laws of physics though. Ignorance is no defence.

Do you know that physiscist have actually proven that ice cream cannot
exist?. (Something about the structure of the ice and fat molecules..).

Which one? Colloid scientists would have little difficulty with this one
- nor would any reasonable physicist. Truly wet water is still a bit
tricky though.

The main point I wanted to make about your assertion of being formally
trained in this field as a necessary and sufficient requirement is not
based on facts. History has shown repeatedly that all great inventions
were made by people who were from other fields.

Actually I think you will find that it is very useful. Otherwise you
spend far too much time reinventing the wheel and trying out "obvious"
solutions that have already been shown to fail. You can see further by
standing on the shoulders of giants. (Newton)


This is really why I am challenging people to think outside the box
regarding telescopes. Why are we still using Newtonian telescopes (or
variants of it). Have we not had a new idea in all this time?...

Schmidt cameras, Maksutovs, SCTs, and more recently Willstrop's 3 mirror
telescope are all obvious counter examples. That you do not know of them
does not prevent them from existing.

Anyway, to more *practical* (I hate that word - it's soooo limiting)
things. I still have the challenge of finding out which existing
telescope will be powerful enough - mounted in my observatory, to help
me detect other planetary systems and be able to perfom a chemical
analysis (using spectroscopy) of any atmosphere surrounding the
planet(s). Sure, it's a tall order but whats the point of living if
there is nothing to aspire to?.

I suggest you put a bid in for a 2-5m class R-C scope and spectroscope.
That or a team of commercial "remote viewers" who will tell you whatever
you want to hear.

Any ideas for outrageously new innovative telescopes ? Do I hear any
suggestions ....?

How about one made of jam jar bottoms ? (alas it has already been done).

Regards,
--
Martin Brown

Hi Takeshi,

Your enthusiasm for the subject is great, and we always like to
welcome people with such enthusiasm. The title you have given to this
thread suggests that finding planets and detecting their atmospheres
is few years away for you yet. This is not to say that one day you may
embark on such a project.

I assume from the title that you have as yet no equipment. To start
you of on the path you have identified for yourself you are going to
need a few skills first.

Learn the Sky - There are some excellent books on this subject, and if
you couple the books with a pair of binoculars of around 10*50 and get
out there every clear night you will speed up this process.

Understand your equipment - ultimately to get to your goal you will
need to know all there is to know about telescopes. Optical properties
of telescopes, Ray diagrams, Advantages/Disadvantages of different
types of scopes. Understanding a telescopes resolution / focal ratios
etc. A good start book would be Star Ware by Phil Harrington. However
ultimately you will need to delve a lot deeper than this.

Learn about your environment - You will need to understand the earths
atmosphere. The limitations it will place upon your observations. You
will need to ask questions like. Just where am I going to setup my
observatory? Forget a city environment this will not work so perhaps
a move to more sedate skies will be in order.

Learn how to make scientific observations - Not as easy as you may
think it will probably be the most complex of tasks so far. You will
need to be able to program computers mathematically. You will need to
observe and then test your observations again and again and again. You
will need to eliminate errors both in your equipment and in your
thoughts and in your Observations. Further, you will need to establish
your bench mark test which will include looking at unique ways of
getting your noise levels below some unthinkable number. Then all that
data and there will be a lot will need to be processed and analysed
again and again and again.

Cost - Will be high it is unlikely you will be able to purchase
equipment of the shelf for this purpose. So making it may be your only
option, CCD equipment for this type of project will be in excess of
£40,000 (That's just the camera!!)

Once you have achieved this you can then move onto some more
complicated tasks such as CCD photography, Spectroscopic observations
and Motorised Telescopes. Now my guess will be that if you achieve all
of that and it will take some years you will take another hard look at
your goals and evaluate them again.

This is why one of the replies to your post suggests you look at a
degree in university if your good enough you will get a researchers
post. This is the only way you will realistically get access to the
equipment needed and resources needed for such a project to be even
remotely successful.

BUT Don't despair, Valuable work can be done in Variable star
observations, Timing of transits, Solar observations the list is
nearly endless. All of which your enthusiasm will be well suited too
and the cost in time, equipment and hair loss will be a lot less.

Barry


PS - OT The bee thing was solved some time ago, the bee gets over his
(Or "our" would be more accurate) predicament in the shape that his
wings make in the air whilst in flight. I am no Entamologist but it
has something to do with the figure 8.

Thanks John,
at least now I know the size of the mammoth task at hand. I'll go off
and do some research and come back later for some more feedback. Many
thanks for your help.

Regards,

Takeshi

John Carruthers wrote:
I still have the challenge of finding out which existing
telescope will be powerful enough - mounted in my observatory, to help
me detect other planetary systems

There is no telescope in existence capable of resolving an extra-solar
planet. The best we can manage at the moment is milli arcsec
resolution. You'd need micro arc sec resolution at least to get the
results you need. You can't do it from within our atmosphere and if
you could you'd need a 100 metre diameter mirror.
Good luck,
jc


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 27/11/2003

Thanks Barry, for your kind words.

I have been acussed several times in the past of "biting off more than I
can chew" ;-). However, I have always proved people wrong. I am certain
however, that this is one project that is by no means going to be a walk
in the park - and could very well be a lifetime quest. Consequently,
your advice is very welcome.

Apart from my (obvious!) enthusiasm, as I mentioned earlier, I do have a
background in Mathematics (only a Master's degree - but atleast it's a
start!). I am also a *reasonably* good programmer ;-) and have written
many simulation "engines" in the past. I am quite fortunate in the sense
that costs are not too much of an issue or deterrent since I have
sufficient funds (and an accompanying income stream) so that I do not
really have to "work" for a living. Before you go thinking I'm an old
codger though, I'll have you know that I'm not even forty yet (close
though!) ;-(. Anyway, I was thinking of putting together a beowulf
system and start "hacking away". I had an idea of "stringing" together
an ANN (artificial neural network) to integrate multiple images from an
artificial compound eye I was thinking of building. After reading your
mail though, I feel that there is a possibility that I may be charging
full steam ahead without surveying the landscape first (as I generally
tend to do!), and run the risk of wasting a lot of time - doing what
someone has already done (and found dosen't work).

I know I'm seeking to do a lot (but what else is there to do in life
than to accept challenges and to challenge ourselves?)- I haven't felt
this driven about a single thing for a long time. I will progress along
the lines you have recommended and will probably end up buying a little
place in the countryside (where there is less light pollution) to build
the observatory.

I think you have all (in this ng) given me enough to begin my quest. It
is likely that I will be gone for a while. But as sure as night follows
day (or should that be "as sure as the earth revolves around the sun"),
I will be back at some later date, to ask for some more help or to get
some feedback.

You have been most helpful


Regards


"Takeshi"


PS: I have been truly humbled about your statement regarding the flight
of the bumblebee. I shall make sure I do not use that to validate my
views on the "superiority of a why over a how"





Barry Sharpe wrote:

Hi Takeshi,

Your enthusiasm for the subject is great, and we always like to
welcome people with such enthusiasm. The title you have given to this
thread suggests that finding planets and detecting their atmospheres
is few years away for you yet. This is not to say that one day you may
embark on such a project.

I assume from the title that you have as yet no equipment. To start
you of on the path you have identified for yourself you are going to
need a few skills first.

Learn the Sky - There are some excellent books on this subject, and if
you couple the books with a pair of binoculars of around 10*50 and get
out there every clear night you will speed up this process.

Understand your equipment - ultimately to get to your goal you will
need to know all there is to know about telescopes. Optical properties
of telescopes, Ray diagrams, Advantages/Disadvantages of different
types of scopes. Understanding a telescopes resolution / focal ratios
etc. A good start book would be Star Ware by Phil Harrington. However
ultimately you will need to delve a lot deeper than this.

Learn about your environment - You will need to understand the earths
atmosphere. The limitations it will place upon your observations. You
will need to ask questions like. Just where am I going to setup my
observatory? Forget a city environment this will not work so perhaps
a move to more sedate skies will be in order.

Learn how to make scientific observations - Not as easy as you may
think it will probably be the most complex of tasks so far. You will
need to be able to program computers mathematically. You will need to
observe and then test your observations again and again and again. You
will need to eliminate errors both in your equipment and in your
thoughts and in your Observations. Further, you will need to establish
your bench mark test which will include looking at unique ways of
getting your noise levels below some unthinkable number. Then all that
data and there will be a lot will need to be processed and analysed
again and again and again.

Cost - Will be high it is unlikely you will be able to purchase
equipment of the shelf for this purpose. So making it may be your only
option, CCD equipment for this type of project will be in excess of
£40,000 (That's just the camera!!)

Once you have achieved this you can then move onto some more
complicated tasks such as CCD photography, Spectroscopic observations
and Motorised Telescopes. Now my guess will be that if you achieve all
of that and it will take some years you will take another hard look at
your goals and evaluate them again.

This is why one of the replies to your post suggests you look at a
degree in university if your good enough you will get a researchers
post. This is the only way you will realistically get access to the
equipment needed and resources needed for such a project to be even
remotely successful.

BUT Don't despair, Valuable work can be done in Variable star
observations, Timing of transits, Solar observations the list is
nearly endless. All of which your enthusiasm will be well suited too
and the cost in time, equipment and hair loss will be a lot less.

Barry


PS - OT The bee thing was solved some time ago, the bee gets over his
(Or "our" would be more accurate) predicament in the shape that his
wings make in the air whilst in flight. I am no Entamologist but it
has something to do with the figure 8.

"Takeshi" wrote in message
...
Ok I get your point John ;-)

I was hoping you'd pick up on the tongue-in-cheek nature of some of my
comments... ;-)

Seriously though, http://www.spectrashift.com/ is certainly worth a visit.
It shows what can be achieved by amateur astronomers using off the shelf
equipment in the area of detecting extrasolar planets.

Oh, and I was serious about learning the constellations! - Although not so
serious about getting to the level of Stephen Hawkings and building a warp
drive probe.... ;-)

Good luck!

John.